OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C., filed by the accused petitioners, seeking quashment of the criminal complaint under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon.

(2.) Facts which are relevant for the decision of the present petition are that Food Inspector along with District Health Officer inspected the premises of Sudesh Kumar at Garhshankar on 24-7-1998 and he was found in possession of 25 packets of 1 kg. Tata Iodised salt, bearing batch No. 16, packed in May 1998. Food Inspector purchased 3 packets of Tata salt from Sudesh Kumar, who had purchased the said Tata salt from M/s. Ajit Singh Om Parkash Limited. After taking aforesaid sample, one part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh. vide report dated 27-8-1998, copy Annexure P2, it was reported by the Public Analyst that the product had not been labelled in accordance with Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and as such it was a misbranded product. The petitioners had been duly informed about the said report of the Public Analyst. Thereupon, Food Inspector filed a criminal complaint under Section 16 of the Act, copy Annexure P7. Aggrieved against the said criminal complaint, petitioners filed the present petition, under Section 482 Cr. P.C. in this Court, seeking quashment of the said complaint on the ground that the same was illegal and not maintainable against the petitioners. Inter alia, it was alleged that the product i.e. Tata Iodised salt was not found to be adulterated or unfit for human consumption by the Public Analyst and on the other hand it was found to be misbranded for which the petitioners were not responsible and only the manufacturing company could be held liable for the same. It was accordingly prayed that the complaint be quashed.

(3.) During the course of arguments, Public Analyst was summoned to explain as to how the product was found to be misbranded.